And here I was just reading that AMD GPUs showed much better performance in Starfield. Maybe it's because they're just not rendering stuff at all lmao
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
186 points (97.0% liked)
Games
16944 readers
478 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Waaaaait... it was a bug and not gross incompetence?
"Bethesda's Bug", when you can't tell if something isn't working correctly or if it's just not implemented at all.
I don't think we know.
Makes me wonder of the dev team is on a much-needed vacation or if they only run nvidia gpus. lol
The game runs better on AMD, and Bethesda partnered with AMD in some way for this PC release.
Does it run better by not rendering light emitting objects?
That's one way to improve performance
Perhaps. Who needs stars anyway?
All GPUs perform equally well the same at ray tracing when there are no rays to trace
That really just means AMD gave them a lot of money, and they just made sure FSR2 worked. lol
#include "fsr2.h"
Ok, can we have the monies please?
I've got a 7900XTX Ultra, and FSR2 does literally nothing, which is hilarious.
100% resolution scale, 128 FPS.
75% resolution scale .. 128 FPS.
50% resolution scale, looking like underwater potatoes ... 128 FPS.
I don't know how it's possible to make an engine this way, it seems CPU-bound and I'm lucky that I upgraded my CPU not too long ago, I'm outperforming my friend who has an RTX 4090 in literally all scenes, indoor, ship, and outdoor/planet.
He struggles to break 70 FPS on 1080p Ultra, meanwhile I'm doing 4K Ultra.
Creation Engine has always been cpu-bound since gamebryo era.
I have noticed it's better anti-aliasing than the forced TAA (once I forced it off)
Some of the benchmarks definitely pointed out that it was CPU bound in many areas (eg. the cities).
I think the HUB one mentioned that some of the forested planets were much more GPU bound and better for testing.
I'm on a tv so capped at 60fps, but I do see a power usage difference with FSR - 75% vs FSR- 100% that's pretty substantial on my 7900xt.
It can be both
If it's down to very specific Chipsets, that sounds like an unforseeable bug.
Correction: someone pointed out they are literally interfacing the graphics drivers the wrong way, so it's still on the their Devs.
An unseeable unforeseeable bug?
I had no idea it was a problem on Radeon GPUs. I saw a few people complaining about not seeing the stars, but I didn't have a clue what they were talking about since it was always fine for my Nvidia card.
Can confirm it's the same on Proton / Linux. This game keeps being a joke on the technical side.
Now it is just Field.
So fitting that this is posted in this Lemmy instance.
Funny I noticed this on New Atlantis and just chalked it up to the devs being lazy